-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary
- Thread starter Clint Kritzer
- Start date
Jason Gastrich
New Member
AVL,
The Message is a paraphrase. And it is not even a good one. It changes the entire meaning of the text,
Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Would you care to add an argument (e.g. proof) to your argument by assertion?
Yes, The Message is a paraphrase. However, I made it clear that in certain places, it gives a beautiful and accurate rendering of the scriptures. I see no reason to categorically "stay away" from it. Read it and decide for yourself.
JG
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Jason, paraphrases ARE good in certain occasions. SOMETIMES they do render the correct meaning. My aunt was led to the Lord with the paraphrase "Good News for Modern Man" back in the 1960's. She has used it ever since and lives a Godly Christian life. But, for the most part I stay away from them just as primary sources.
AVL1984
AVL1984
Jason Gastrich
New Member
AVL1984,
Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't use The Message as a primary source, either.
JG
Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't use The Message as a primary source, either.
JG
I might add that it was the Living Bible that got me to reading the Bible as a teenager many years ago. It is a paraphrase and I really enjoyed reading it. Now I like to read translations that are true to the Hebrew/ Greek text.
It was a few years ago that our women came back from a retreat where the leader used the Message. One of our ladies read the verse used as the theme of the retreat. In looking at the Greek and genuine versions of the Bible the Message had completely change the meaning of the verse. I cannot remember the passage and have not picked up a Message since, I do not nor would I own one. I can read a genuine translation without having to deal with someones paraphrase of the real thing.
The Message is what it is, a paraphrase. You want to read it, fine. But it is not a literal translation so it is not a Bible, but a paraphrase of the Bible.
Bro Tony
It was a few years ago that our women came back from a retreat where the leader used the Message. One of our ladies read the verse used as the theme of the retreat. In looking at the Greek and genuine versions of the Bible the Message had completely change the meaning of the verse. I cannot remember the passage and have not picked up a Message since, I do not nor would I own one. I can read a genuine translation without having to deal with someones paraphrase of the real thing.
The Message is what it is, a paraphrase. You want to read it, fine. But it is not a literal translation so it is not a Bible, but a paraphrase of the Bible.
Bro Tony
Jason, after reviewing the debate it appears you are mistaken about Will's posting of an extra round.
He posted in response to yours, and you started the debate. You noted in the beginning of the debate, after Will attempted to post a first round, that the rules had not yet been agreed to, and that when they were the debate would commence.
The rules were agreed to, and then you posted round one, which Will then responded to.
Then you posted round one, which according to your own words started the debate.
I am not and was not aware of any problems with the forum software. I also do not know the "word limit" for posts, but it appears there is one. If your posts worked for Diane, and for me, there apparently isn't a forum problem, but a problem with your computer or with your attempts to post. Given that there are thousands of members on this board and nobody but you believes there is such a type of problem with the forum software, it leads me to believe the problem is not the forum software.
Gina
He posted in response to yours, and you started the debate. You noted in the beginning of the debate, after Will attempted to post a first round, that the rules had not yet been agreed to, and that when they were the debate would commence.
The rules were agreed to, and then you posted round one, which Will then responded to.
Then you posted round one, which according to your own words started the debate.
I am not and was not aware of any problems with the forum software. I also do not know the "word limit" for posts, but it appears there is one. If your posts worked for Diane, and for me, there apparently isn't a forum problem, but a problem with your computer or with your attempts to post. Given that there are thousands of members on this board and nobody but you believes there is such a type of problem with the forum software, it leads me to believe the problem is not the forum software.
Gina
Jason Gastrich
New Member
Gina,
Thanks for your message.
You are incorrect about me beginning the debate. The affirmative position ALWAYS goes first in a formal debate. This is why on August 18 at 01:31pm, I wrote: “If you agree with these parameters, then please post and say so. The affirmative position always goes first, so that means you will go first.” This means Will goes first and Will did go first. You obviously didn’t count the posts made or else you would see that Will posted an extra round after the closing round of posts.
Will took the affirmative position that the KJV was inerrant. I took the negative position.
Furthermore, on August 19 at 01:18pm, Will said: “I will try to have my opening arguments posted this sometime weekend .” As you can plainly read, Will posted the opening post of the debate shortly afterwards. I did not. The first post, which was a post by Will, was made on August 19 at 04:10pm.
You should check into the forum parameters regarding posting limits. As I’ve told you repeatedly, I posted far under the limit, but it wouldn’t let me. I even broke my post into parts and it didn’t let me. That is all anyone should have to do to post a message. However, I did appreciate the moderator’s help because the only other solution would have been to move the debate.
Sincerely,
Jason
Thanks for your message.
You are incorrect about me beginning the debate. The affirmative position ALWAYS goes first in a formal debate. This is why on August 18 at 01:31pm, I wrote: “If you agree with these parameters, then please post and say so. The affirmative position always goes first, so that means you will go first.” This means Will goes first and Will did go first. You obviously didn’t count the posts made or else you would see that Will posted an extra round after the closing round of posts.
Will took the affirmative position that the KJV was inerrant. I took the negative position.
Furthermore, on August 19 at 01:18pm, Will said: “I will try to have my opening arguments posted this sometime weekend .” As you can plainly read, Will posted the opening post of the debate shortly afterwards. I did not. The first post, which was a post by Will, was made on August 19 at 04:10pm.
You should check into the forum parameters regarding posting limits. As I’ve told you repeatedly, I posted far under the limit, but it wouldn’t let me. I even broke my post into parts and it didn’t let me. That is all anyone should have to do to post a message. However, I did appreciate the moderator’s help because the only other solution would have been to move the debate.
Sincerely,
Jason
August 19 6:35 pm
Will,
Did you read my last post? I posted some terms and you need to agree with them before the debate begins.
Sincerely,
Jason
August 19 8:33 pm
Will,
Thanks for emailing me your bio. If you can agree to the terms, then the debate will commence.
God bless,
Jason
This is where I got that from. The next "official" post after you said this was posted by you and titled "Round 1".
Going over it again now, I see you responded to the post Will made before the agreement happened, both of you agreed to use it and respond to it.
So yes, it does appear I was wrong in thinking that Will made the correct number of posts. I was counting from after the agreement.
That being the case, I will move his last post over to the commentary section.
Now, this next question is for both you and Will. Do you want the beginning posts containing the terms and agreements to remain in the thread, or do you want to simply keep the rounds and their responses on?
Gina
Will,
Did you read my last post? I posted some terms and you need to agree with them before the debate begins.
Sincerely,
Jason
August 19 8:33 pm
Will,
Thanks for emailing me your bio. If you can agree to the terms, then the debate will commence.
God bless,
Jason
This is where I got that from. The next "official" post after you said this was posted by you and titled "Round 1".
Going over it again now, I see you responded to the post Will made before the agreement happened, both of you agreed to use it and respond to it.
So yes, it does appear I was wrong in thinking that Will made the correct number of posts. I was counting from after the agreement.
That being the case, I will move his last post over to the commentary section.
Now, this next question is for both you and Will. Do you want the beginning posts containing the terms and agreements to remain in the thread, or do you want to simply keep the rounds and their responses on?
Gina
Originally posted by Will Kinney, recopied to this forum after being removed from the formal debate, as it didn't follow the agreed upon number of posts.
The Inerrancy of the Scriptures
Jason Gastrich posts: >>>God is perfect. The Word that He breathed through the original Bible authors was inerrant. Furthermore, He has preserved His Word through the manuscripts that are copies of the originals. This can be confirmed.<<<<
Uh, Jason, how would you go about confirming this? All the other Bible versions out there, not just the King James Bible, are in disagreement with the way you personally think the Bible should be written, both in its texts and meaning. See, we don't even know how your personalized "bible" reads, mainly because it is not yet in print, so how can we confirm that God has preserved His words according to your theory?
>>>>During my studies, I found that I had to return to the original languages in order to understand the answers to some of the alleged errors. Was this wrong? Well, for someone who does not claim that an English translation is inerrant, it was not wrong. It was perfectly right and normal. Would you really think that there would be no problems in translating the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into English? As small as they may be, there were some issues. It has been my pleasure to invest thousands of hours of research on alleged Bible errors. My faith in God and His Word has increased a great deal. Wouldn’t yours if you found all of the answers to the tough questions about the scriptures?<<<<
Jason, the "answers" you have found as exemplified by the six "errors" you brought up in the KJB do not agree with all the other Bible versions out there. I showed you how even the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ASV, RV, ESV, Holman and the Jewish translations all agree with the King James Bible in those six examples of alleged error you have found. It looks like all these other Bible translators, who have just as much training and education as you do, are not in agreement with your mystical bible version that has yet to see the light of day in print anywhere on this earth.
Now guess whom this leaves as the Final Authority in your "humble opinion"? Surprise! Why, it's Dr. Jason Gastrich!
>>>>I cannot honestly say that the KJV is inerrant. There are some obvious contradictions. In my humble opinion, those that have read the obvious errors in the KJV and still say there are no errors are lying and are dangerous people. They have let their pet belief dominate their intelligence and their life. They have exchanged diligent study and rational thinking with blind faith and foolishness.<<<
Jason, if in your "humble opinion" those who disagree with you as to your "obvious errors" are lying and dangerous people, then you have just accused the translators of the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman as being lying, dangerous people who have left rational thinking for blind faith and foolishness.
Again, who is left as the sole beacon of light in the midst of all this darkness? Why, it's
Baffling
>>>>It’s baffling how Will can proclaim the KJV is inerrant... it is absurd and irrational to blindly proclaim that the KJV is inerrant; especially after all of the evidence to the contrary. Will likes to talk about preservation and how God must have preserved His Word for English speaking people. This is fine and good. However, Will was never able to tell us why this preserved Word had to be the KJV. Why couldn’t it be another, existing translation? Why couldn’t it be another yet-to-be-written translation? This will always be a problem for people who believe like Will.<<<<
Jason, again you have failed to identify any "Bible" as being the preserved word of God and even go to the extent of suggesting that it might be "another yet-to-be written translation". Gee, I wonder who the person might be who maybe will bring this future inerrant Bible to the light of day. Care to venture a guess, Jason?
Now how did God preserve His words -past tense- in a yet to be written -future- translation that you can't even name? And you think I am the one with the straw man arguments! Amazing.
>>>Will expects us to believe with him that there was no inerrant English Bible for over 1600 years, then God gave us the KJV as His inerrant Word. This seems a bit arbitrary. Doesn’t it? Why the KJV? Why then? Why not a different translation and why not later? If God could wait 1600 years to reveal His preserved Word to the English speaking people, then why not wait 400 more years?<<<
Jason, I have affirmed God preserved His words in the past somewhere on this earth - In the Hebrew Scriptures, which you yourself claim have been corrupted and don't believe are totally the preserved words of God. They also were most likely in the Old Latin Bibles used by the Waldensians till the time of the Reformation. You even suggest that God's perfect words in English may have to wait another 400 years or more. See, you have no inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth that you can confidently recommend to others, because this imaginary "bible" of yours has yet to be written. So far, all we have seen is that your mystical, non-existent bible differs from ALL the other versions out there, and you apparently are the only one so far who knows how it should be written, yet you have not put it in print for us so we can see what an inerrant Bible looks like.
Other Arguments and KJV- Onlyists
>>>Throughout the debate, Will mocked me and told me I had no inerrant Bible. Do you think this was appropriate? If Will has an inerrant KJV, then it came from inerrant manuscripts that came from inerrant autographs. I affirm the inerrant autographs. I even affirm the fact that we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compose a single, inerrant Bible. However, I will not be intellectually dishonest like Will and turn a blind eye to the obvious, KJV errors.>>>
Jason, and you still have no inerrant Bible. Get a clue. Your seminary education has not only stripped you of faith in an inerrant Bible but also of your logical reasoning ability. You may think we KJB believers are ignorant, but we are not stupid. We can follow simple arguments that lead to absurd contradictions.
is claiming:
1. I affirm the inerrant autographs.
How do you know the autographs were inerrant? You have never seen them because they don't exist. You are asking us to place our faith in something that does not exist.
2. I affirm we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compose a single inerrant Bible.
They why haven't you done this? Those manuscripts you, Jason Gastrich, consider to be inerrant are not considered inerrant by many other translators. In fact, you often reject the Hebrew texts and follow the Syriac or the Septuagint or just make it up as you go. All the editors of the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman would disagree with you, Jason Gastrich, as to which Greek texts are inerrant. The NKJV editors would hold a different position than the others. ALL these versions disagree with you, Jason Gastrich, as to the six alleged errors you produced claiming the KJB is wrong.
Who is this "WE" you keep talking about? "WE have enough inerrant mss. to compose a Bible". Who is this "we" Jason? Don't you mean " I, Jason Gastrich, alone know which texts are right and how to translate them, but I haven't had enough interest in this trivial matter to actually put them all together and print it in a Book composed of paper and ink" ?
>>>>I encourage the KJV-Onlyists to join the other inerrantists. We know that God’s Word is inerrant. However, we also know that the KJV is not. >>>
The only inerrantists out there today in the Church who can point to an actual Holy Bible composed of paper and ink that anyone can buy, read, memorize and believe are the King James only people. All you other guys believe ONLY the originals, that have now been lost, WERE inerrant, and NO Bible today IS NOW the inerrant words of God. You are such a liar and a phony. You call yourself an inerrantist, yet you have no Bible in print that is inerrant. And your particular, personal and peculiar "inerrant bible", that has yet to be printed, is different from everyone else's. How in the world is this taking a bold stand for inerrancy?
"Let them alone. They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matthew 15:14
Will Kinney
The Inerrancy of the Scriptures
Jason Gastrich posts: >>>God is perfect. The Word that He breathed through the original Bible authors was inerrant. Furthermore, He has preserved His Word through the manuscripts that are copies of the originals. This can be confirmed.<<<<
Uh, Jason, how would you go about confirming this? All the other Bible versions out there, not just the King James Bible, are in disagreement with the way you personally think the Bible should be written, both in its texts and meaning. See, we don't even know how your personalized "bible" reads, mainly because it is not yet in print, so how can we confirm that God has preserved His words according to your theory?
>>>>During my studies, I found that I had to return to the original languages in order to understand the answers to some of the alleged errors. Was this wrong? Well, for someone who does not claim that an English translation is inerrant, it was not wrong. It was perfectly right and normal. Would you really think that there would be no problems in translating the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into English? As small as they may be, there were some issues. It has been my pleasure to invest thousands of hours of research on alleged Bible errors. My faith in God and His Word has increased a great deal. Wouldn’t yours if you found all of the answers to the tough questions about the scriptures?<<<<
Jason, the "answers" you have found as exemplified by the six "errors" you brought up in the KJB do not agree with all the other Bible versions out there. I showed you how even the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ASV, RV, ESV, Holman and the Jewish translations all agree with the King James Bible in those six examples of alleged error you have found. It looks like all these other Bible translators, who have just as much training and education as you do, are not in agreement with your mystical bible version that has yet to see the light of day in print anywhere on this earth.
Now guess whom this leaves as the Final Authority in your "humble opinion"? Surprise! Why, it's Dr. Jason Gastrich!
>>>>I cannot honestly say that the KJV is inerrant. There are some obvious contradictions. In my humble opinion, those that have read the obvious errors in the KJV and still say there are no errors are lying and are dangerous people. They have let their pet belief dominate their intelligence and their life. They have exchanged diligent study and rational thinking with blind faith and foolishness.<<<
Jason, if in your "humble opinion" those who disagree with you as to your "obvious errors" are lying and dangerous people, then you have just accused the translators of the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman as being lying, dangerous people who have left rational thinking for blind faith and foolishness.
Again, who is left as the sole beacon of light in the midst of all this darkness? Why, it's
Baffling
>>>>It’s baffling how Will can proclaim the KJV is inerrant... it is absurd and irrational to blindly proclaim that the KJV is inerrant; especially after all of the evidence to the contrary. Will likes to talk about preservation and how God must have preserved His Word for English speaking people. This is fine and good. However, Will was never able to tell us why this preserved Word had to be the KJV. Why couldn’t it be another, existing translation? Why couldn’t it be another yet-to-be-written translation? This will always be a problem for people who believe like Will.<<<<
Jason, again you have failed to identify any "Bible" as being the preserved word of God and even go to the extent of suggesting that it might be "another yet-to-be written translation". Gee, I wonder who the person might be who maybe will bring this future inerrant Bible to the light of day. Care to venture a guess, Jason?
Now how did God preserve His words -past tense- in a yet to be written -future- translation that you can't even name? And you think I am the one with the straw man arguments! Amazing.
>>>Will expects us to believe with him that there was no inerrant English Bible for over 1600 years, then God gave us the KJV as His inerrant Word. This seems a bit arbitrary. Doesn’t it? Why the KJV? Why then? Why not a different translation and why not later? If God could wait 1600 years to reveal His preserved Word to the English speaking people, then why not wait 400 more years?<<<
Jason, I have affirmed God preserved His words in the past somewhere on this earth - In the Hebrew Scriptures, which you yourself claim have been corrupted and don't believe are totally the preserved words of God. They also were most likely in the Old Latin Bibles used by the Waldensians till the time of the Reformation. You even suggest that God's perfect words in English may have to wait another 400 years or more. See, you have no inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth that you can confidently recommend to others, because this imaginary "bible" of yours has yet to be written. So far, all we have seen is that your mystical, non-existent bible differs from ALL the other versions out there, and you apparently are the only one so far who knows how it should be written, yet you have not put it in print for us so we can see what an inerrant Bible looks like.
Other Arguments and KJV- Onlyists
>>>Throughout the debate, Will mocked me and told me I had no inerrant Bible. Do you think this was appropriate? If Will has an inerrant KJV, then it came from inerrant manuscripts that came from inerrant autographs. I affirm the inerrant autographs. I even affirm the fact that we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compose a single, inerrant Bible. However, I will not be intellectually dishonest like Will and turn a blind eye to the obvious, KJV errors.>>>
Jason, and you still have no inerrant Bible. Get a clue. Your seminary education has not only stripped you of faith in an inerrant Bible but also of your logical reasoning ability. You may think we KJB believers are ignorant, but we are not stupid. We can follow simple arguments that lead to absurd contradictions.
is claiming:
1. I affirm the inerrant autographs.
How do you know the autographs were inerrant? You have never seen them because they don't exist. You are asking us to place our faith in something that does not exist.
2. I affirm we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compose a single inerrant Bible.
They why haven't you done this? Those manuscripts you, Jason Gastrich, consider to be inerrant are not considered inerrant by many other translators. In fact, you often reject the Hebrew texts and follow the Syriac or the Septuagint or just make it up as you go. All the editors of the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman would disagree with you, Jason Gastrich, as to which Greek texts are inerrant. The NKJV editors would hold a different position than the others. ALL these versions disagree with you, Jason Gastrich, as to the six alleged errors you produced claiming the KJB is wrong.
Who is this "WE" you keep talking about? "WE have enough inerrant mss. to compose a Bible". Who is this "we" Jason? Don't you mean " I, Jason Gastrich, alone know which texts are right and how to translate them, but I haven't had enough interest in this trivial matter to actually put them all together and print it in a Book composed of paper and ink" ?
>>>>I encourage the KJV-Onlyists to join the other inerrantists. We know that God’s Word is inerrant. However, we also know that the KJV is not. >>>
The only inerrantists out there today in the Church who can point to an actual Holy Bible composed of paper and ink that anyone can buy, read, memorize and believe are the King James only people. All you other guys believe ONLY the originals, that have now been lost, WERE inerrant, and NO Bible today IS NOW the inerrant words of God. You are such a liar and a phony. You call yourself an inerrantist, yet you have no Bible in print that is inerrant. And your particular, personal and peculiar "inerrant bible", that has yet to be printed, is different from everyone else's. How in the world is this taking a bold stand for inerrancy?
"Let them alone. They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matthew 15:14
Will Kinney
Jason Gastrich
New Member
Gina,
Please visit "snip" . They have a very successful format regarding formal, one on one debates. With all due respect, it seems that BB was ill prepared.
IIDB has a section for debate proposals. This is where the discussion of the parameters should have been. So yes, they should be moved or deleted from the actual debate thread.
After the debate parameters are set, two threads are opened: one for commentary and one for the debate. Nobody besides the debaters are allowed to post in the debate thread. Plus, the debaters are NOT allowed to post in the commentary section until the debate is finished.
If you check out IIDB and read their rules and format, you may want to adopt it here. I've enjoyed my debates there and they have done an adequate job at moderating.
God bless,
Jason
[ September 27, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
Please visit "snip" . They have a very successful format regarding formal, one on one debates. With all due respect, it seems that BB was ill prepared.
IIDB has a section for debate proposals. This is where the discussion of the parameters should have been. So yes, they should be moved or deleted from the actual debate thread.
After the debate parameters are set, two threads are opened: one for commentary and one for the debate. Nobody besides the debaters are allowed to post in the debate thread. Plus, the debaters are NOT allowed to post in the commentary section until the debate is finished.
If you check out IIDB and read their rules and format, you may want to adopt it here. I've enjoyed my debates there and they have done an adequate job at moderating.
God bless,
Jason
[ September 27, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
Thanks for the link. It's helpful to know, and yes this board was/is unprepared for such format. Normally one on one is not encouraged/allowed as it is an open forum. Once upon a time there was a section opened up for formal debate, but there was a lack of interest in it, so it was closed.
I'm going to have to delete that link though. I'm familiar with that board from the past, and know that it has content that we do not want to have people from this board linked too, especially since a number of children frequent the BB.
Gina
I'm going to have to delete that link though. I'm familiar with that board from the past, and know that it has content that we do not want to have people from this board linked too, especially since a number of children frequent the BB.
Gina
Jason Gastrich
New Member
You're welcome.
Yes, IIDB is an atheist lair. In fact, it's the most popular atheist hangout in the world with over 1.8 million messages and 14,000+ members. My four debates there have been read over 18,000 times and the numbers keep growing. Glory to God.
It's a great place for evangelism and shining the light of Jesus Christ. Those atheists delight in Christians coming and debating them. However, I don't get involved in chit chat or informal conversations. I don't like to get ganged up on.
God bless,
Jason
Yes, IIDB is an atheist lair. In fact, it's the most popular atheist hangout in the world with over 1.8 million messages and 14,000+ members. My four debates there have been read over 18,000 times and the numbers keep growing. Glory to God.
It's a great place for evangelism and shining the light of Jesus Christ. Those atheists delight in Christians coming and debating them. However, I don't get involved in chit chat or informal conversations. I don't like to get ganged up on.
God bless,
Jason
I am always amazed at how some try to describe spirituality. Paul said his righteousness was as dung. But yet there are those who claim to be spiritual by the standards they hold.
The only problem is that when you try to measure true spirituality you can't. True spirituality is measured by relationship with Jesus not standards like gnosticism. We know how our relationship with Jesus is. But we can never brag or boast about our relationship with God. When we know God the only thing we can boast about is God. At the same time we are emptied of self.
I have never had growing Christians or pagans ever give me trouble when I pastored. It was always the lukewarm folks that said they believed the bible but trembled when it came to time to step out and do something. When it came to step out in faith they relied on their own logic of fear. The only people who ever gave Jesus trouble were the religionists.
Many call themselves conservative but are in fact practicing atheists. They don't make disciples. If we are not making discipes then we are no better than an atheist because we live as though God does not exist.
The only problem is that when you try to measure true spirituality you can't. True spirituality is measured by relationship with Jesus not standards like gnosticism. We know how our relationship with Jesus is. But we can never brag or boast about our relationship with God. When we know God the only thing we can boast about is God. At the same time we are emptied of self.
I have never had growing Christians or pagans ever give me trouble when I pastored. It was always the lukewarm folks that said they believed the bible but trembled when it came to time to step out and do something. When it came to step out in faith they relied on their own logic of fear. The only people who ever gave Jesus trouble were the religionists.
Many call themselves conservative but are in fact practicing atheists. They don't make disciples. If we are not making discipes then we are no better than an atheist because we live as though God does not exist.